14:38:07 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:38:07 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/30-rdf-star-irc
14:38:09 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:38:10 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
14:38:16 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star
14:38:19 <pchampin> chair: pchampin
14:38:32 <pchampin> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Apr/0008.html
14:38:32 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:38:32 <agendabot> agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
14:38:32 <agendabot> agenda+ Open actions
14:38:32 <agendabot> agenda+ PR 161: Media-types
14:38:32 <agendabot> agenda+ PR 162: Semantics
14:38:34 <agendabot> agenda+ Open-ended discussions
14:38:46 <pchampin> Previous meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-04-23.html
14:38:53 <pchampin> Next meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-05-07.html
14:47:27 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
14:47:34 <AndyS> Hi
14:48:01 <pchampin> hi
14:48:34 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
14:57:09 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-star
14:57:47 <Julian> Julian has joined #rdf-star
14:59:36 <james_> james_ has joined #rdf-star
14:59:59 <gatemezing> gatemezing has joined #rdf-star
15:00:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:00:51 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
15:01:52 <gkellogg> present+
15:02:16 <gatemezing> present+
15:02:45 <pchampin> present+
15:02:53 <james_> present+
15:03:06 <thomas> thomas has joined #rdf-star
15:03:31 <olaf> present+
15:04:12 <thomas> present+
15:04:19 <AndyS> present+
15:05:01 <pchampin> scribe: olaf
15:05:03 <AndyS> "not knowing who has scribed, I nominate Ora"
15:05:11 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:05:11 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:05:48 <olaf> pchampin: RDF-star will be presented at the KGC
15:05:52 <TallTed> present+
15:06:05 <pchampin> q?
15:06:10 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:06:10 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, pchampin
15:06:35 <pchampin> zakim, agendum 2
15:06:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'agendum 2', pchampin
15:06:38 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:06:38 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:07:02 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
15:07:09 <olaf> pchampin: no pending actions on github
15:07:31 <olaf> andys: checkup on the issue about the SPARQL-star grammar
15:07:52 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/163
15:08:02 <olaf> pchampin: the grammar is not complete
15:08:21 <olaf> ... double-pointy brackets for expressions are missing
15:08:29 <AndyS> I've made it an "action" and assigned it to myself.
15:08:51 <pchampin> q?
15:09:08 <olaf> AndyS: wrapped up about organizing the manifests
15:09:13 <olaf> ... has been merged
15:09:18 <pchampin> q?
15:09:29 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:09:29 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- PR 161: Media-types -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:09:58 <olaf> pchampin: wrote a section based on discussion from last week
15:10:22 <olaf> ... including a listing of pros and cons of the different approaches
15:10:37 <olaf> ... and clarification that the group didn't reach consensus
15:10:52 <olaf> ... Hope that all arguments are captured
15:11:10 <pchampin> q?
15:11:18 <thomas> q+
15:11:26 <pchampin> ack thomas
15:11:46 <olaf> thomas: question: what ways are there to make explicit that an endpoint supports SPARQL-star?
15:12:14 <gkellogg> q+
15:12:29 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
15:12:34 <olaf> pchampin: no answer
15:12:49 <TallTed> https://example.org/sparql -> https://example.org/sparql-star  :-)
15:12:55 <olaf> gkellogg: it would be reasonable to add something for a SPARQL-star service description
15:13:09 <gatemezing> +1 to add a SPARQL service description
15:13:09 <james_> https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description
15:13:45 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#sd-feature
15:13:52 <olaf> ... retrieving the service descr. is not part of the protocol
15:14:18 <james_> https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#sd-resultFormat
15:14:37 <olaf> ... it's a machine-readable approach
15:14:38 <TallTed> It's not currently part of "every client's" activity; more part of advanced client's activity, when they're looking for a specific (typically more advanced) feature
15:15:31 <olaf> pchampin: we may define an IRI for a SPARQL-star feature
15:15:42 <olaf> ... to be used in such service description
15:15:59 <olaf> ... and then encourage providers to include it in their service descr.
15:16:15 <james_> the "standard" features are described in the service description recommendation
15:16:28 <olaf> AndyS: another use of the service descr. ...
15:16:34 <olaf> ... used by aggregators
15:16:38 <TallTed> more details, including example features -- https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#sd-Feature
15:17:14 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
15:17:16 <pchampin> Action: pchampin to add a paragraph on SPARQL service description and sd:feature
15:17:43 <TallTed> https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#sd-Language might be more appropriate, i.e., SPARQL-star is a different language than SPARQL 1.0 or SPARQL 1.1
15:18:05 <olaf> pchampin: good approach for the optimistic perspective regarding the mimetypes
15:18:32 <ora> present+
15:18:39 <ora> Sorry I was late.
15:18:40 <TallTed> see also https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/#lang-sparql10query and following
15:18:59 <olaf> ... my fear is that having an x-... mimetype may make people use it
15:19:21 <gatemezing> Zakim, who is here?
15:19:21 <Zakim> Present: gkellogg, gatemezing, pchampin, james_, olaf, thomas, AndyS, TallTed, ora
15:19:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see ora, thomas, olaf, gkellogg, gatemezing, james_, TallTed, AndyS, RRSAgent, Zakim, pchampin, agendabot, rhiaro
15:19:29 <olaf> gkellogg: that's orthogonal to the service descr. issue
15:19:50 <olaf> ... it's reasonable to have an RDF-star namespace
15:20:07 <pchampin> q?
15:20:39 <olaf> pchampin: will keep the PR on media types open for a few days
15:20:55 <olaf> ... so that everyone can take a look and react
15:21:04 <pchampin> q?
15:21:16 <olaf> ... and if no complaints in a few days, then the PR will be merged
15:21:19 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:21:20 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- PR 162: Semantics -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:21:43 <olaf> pchampin: made another PR about the semantics of RDF-star
15:21:55 <olaf> ... it's less disruptive than the previous one
15:22:09 <olaf> ... Two advantages:
15:22:17 <olaf> first, get rid of hidden IRIs
15:22:47 <AndyS> q+ about simple literals
15:23:00 <AndyS> q+ to ask about simple literals
15:23:29 <olaf> second, it's consistent with SPARQL-star eval.semantics (at least, PA things so)
15:23:48 <olaf> s/things/thinks
15:24:18 <olaf> pchampin: doesn't change anything in the semantics-related test suites
15:24:39 <pchampin> q?
15:24:41 <olaf> ... any opinions about it?
15:24:44 <pchampin> ack AndyS
15:24:44 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about simple literals
15:25:02 <olaf> AndyS: talking about simple literals causes trouble
15:25:15 <olaf> ... they don't exist in RDF but only in the syntax
15:25:24 <olaf> pchampin: that's right
15:25:42 <olaf> ... it was already in the previous version
15:25:48 <pchampin> https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html#mapping
15:26:40 <olaf> ... agree that they way it's phrased is ambiguous
15:26:52 <olaf> ... Peter suggested something else
15:27:03 <olaf> ... which is probably a better idea
15:27:29 <olaf> ... PR will be adapted accordingly
15:28:09 <pchampin> q?
15:28:55 <olaf> ... Waiting for Dörthe and others to take a look
15:29:11 <olaf> ... if no complaints in a couple of days, then it will be merged
15:29:30 <olaf> ... only things it changes are things that none liked before
15:29:42 <pchampin> q?
15:29:49 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:29:49 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- Open-ended discussions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:30:23 <olaf> AndyS: "How do we get out of this" question
15:30:55 <olaf> ... how do we get to a finished version?
15:31:25 <olaf> ... what time frame?
15:31:36 <olaf> ... shall we call the next draft the "last call"?
15:31:53 <TallTed> "time" isn't the best measurement.  "the point where none of us see major issues" would be good.
15:32:13 <thomas> q+
15:32:14 <olaf> ... agrees to TallTed
15:32:25 <olaf> ... but there are no more major issues
15:32:56 <olaf> TallTed: the point of this task force is to focus on a particular thing
15:33:11 <olaf> ... if we don't see no major issues with that thing, then
15:33:24 <olaf> ... the report should go to RDF-DEV CG
15:33:55 <olaf> AndyS: The last call may go to RDF-DEV CG
15:34:04 <gkellogg> q+
15:34:07 <william> william has joined #rdf-star
15:34:07 <olaf> ... Is there a list of remaining major issues?
15:34:08 <gatemezing> We can tag here https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues "mejor issues" ?
15:34:35 <olaf> pchampin: tag issue in github
15:34:55 <olaf> s/issue/issues
15:35:06 <olaf> AndyS: tie that to the document
15:35:08 <gkellogg> q-
15:35:47 <pchampin> action: create "outsanding issues" in the CG-report as being the things to complete before we're done
15:36:00 <pchampin> ack thomas
15:36:26 <olaf> thomas: want to confirm that he is working on a longish email about the semantics
15:36:51 <gkellogg> q+
15:36:59 <olaf> ... wants to convince the group of moving to transparency semantics
15:37:21 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
15:37:41 <olaf> gkellogg: in addition to an email, a PR would be great
15:38:05 <olaf> ... that PR should capture the alternative proposal
15:38:28 <olaf> AndyS: instead of a PR (which freezes it), put it into a separate document
15:38:52 <olaf> gkellogg: or on a wiki page
15:39:12 <olaf> thomas: my aim is still to change it
15:39:21 <TallTed> q+
15:39:25 <olaf> ... I would like to have a discussion first
15:39:37 <olaf> ... but, of course, prefer a note
15:40:03 <olaf> pchampin: agrees that, at least, the rationale for the decision should be in the report
15:40:19 <olaf> ... regarding freezing: we can have both
15:40:41 <olaf> ... it's similar to the discussion of the seminal example
15:41:02 <olaf> ... it's good to have the report as the single-point of reference
15:41:18 <olaf> TallTed: what#s nice here is that we are not an immutable academic paper
15:41:34 <olaf> ... we can make it a "snapshot draft"
15:42:09 <olaf> ... which may include pointers to the discussions in the github issues, the mailing list, etc
15:42:37 <olaf> pchampin: agrees
15:42:57 <olaf> ... yet, it would be nicer for the reader of the report to have a summary in the report
15:43:06 <olaf> ... rather than just a link to somewhere else
15:43:10 <olaf> thomas: yes
15:43:30 <pchampin> action: add a section about the rationale for semantic opacity / transparency
15:43:53 <olaf> TallTed: may even be marked as a "feature with risk"
15:44:03 <olaf> AndyS: this can get out of control
15:44:24 <olaf> ... wouldn't have a report with a long discussion of the alternatives
15:44:47 <olaf> ... counterproductive opposite the Property Graphs community
15:45:53 <olaf> ... may seem as if nothing was agreed
15:46:34 <olaf> pchampin: no, instead, intention is to give a rationale for the solution (semantics) that we keep in the end
15:46:57 <olaf> ... really only explain the consequences of the semantics
15:47:45 <olaf> TallTed: didn't think the focus of this work was to convert PG people to the RDF world
15:48:00 <pchampin> q?
15:48:04 <olaf> ... but instead to avoid people turning from RDF to PGs
15:48:24 <olaf> gkellogg: it provides a formal underpinning
15:48:29 <TallTed> q-
15:48:39 <olaf> ... marketing
15:49:04 <olaf> pchampin: to Ted: I think it works both ways
15:49:25 <pchampin> q?
15:49:26 <ora> q+
15:49:35 <TallTed> s/instead to avoid people turning from RDF to PGs/instead to fill a perceived gap in RDF that might send people from RDF to PGs.../
15:49:43 <olaf> kgellogg: another thing that came up...
15:50:07 <pchampin> s/kgellogg/gkellogg/
15:50:25 <olaf> ... difference between relationship and attributes in PGs
15:51:26 <olaf> ... there is a distinction that some people see when comparing commerical PGs and RDF triple stores
15:51:47 <olaf> s/commerical/commercial
15:52:05 <olaf> pchampin: see how it is related to the PG versus RDF discussion
15:52:20 <olaf> ... but not specific to RDF-star
15:53:46 <olaf> ... usually, we consider this a representation issue
15:54:08 <olaf> ... however, it may also be deeper
15:54:12 <gkellogg> Discussion is in EasierRDF https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/45
15:54:33 <olaf> ... for instance, in Cypher the distinction is also in the query expressions
15:54:53 <olaf> ... perhaps out of scope
15:55:24 <olaf> gkellogg: suggest to take a look at the issue in EasierRDF github
15:55:30 <olaf> ... and to chime in
15:55:46 <olaf> AndyS: Actually, it is in OWL
15:55:56 <olaf> ... datatype properties versus object properties
15:56:16 <olaf> pchampin: okay, OWL has this distinction
15:56:39 <olaf> ... but rarely any visual representations of RDF graphs
15:56:50 <olaf> ... that make this distinction
15:57:11 <olaf> ... e.g., by visualizing an RDF graph more in a PG-like manner
15:57:12 <pchampin> q?
15:57:21 <pchampin> ack ora
15:57:40 <olaf> ora: comment on what Ted said earlier about the perceived gap between
15:57:43 <olaf> ... PG and RDF
15:57:58 <olaf> ... when talking to customers who are just starting
15:58:14 <olaf> ... they almost always ask whether they should go for RDF or PG
15:58:31 <olaf> ... and it seems to them that there is no going back
15:58:45 <olaf> ... RDF-star may help to narrow the gap
15:58:51 <gatemezing> Ora, that perception is not because you provide both PG and RDF in your tools?
15:59:11 <olaf> AndyS: primarily about provenance of (RDF) data
15:59:26 <olaf> ... and being able to handle it in a convenient way
15:59:45 <olaf> ora: to the question from the chat: it is not only about that
15:59:52 <olaf> ... not always the case
16:00:03 <olaf> ... instead, more general discussions about graphs
16:00:04 <pchampin> q?
16:00:09 <gatemezing> Thanks ora! Makes sense
16:00:13 <olaf> ... even before a decision which type of DB to pick
16:01:01 <olaf> pchampin: KGC next week, but no overlap with the call
16:01:02 <gatemezing> Bye!
16:01:05 <william> bye!
16:01:05 <ora> Bye
16:10:34 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
17:46:49 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star